Friday, November 16, 2007

Has Bush "LOST" His Mind?

His support for the Law Of The Sea treaty is not surprising:

The president continues to support the pending Law of the Sea Treaty, but a spokeswoman isn't going to speculate on how it would have affected critical U.S. operations on the sea had it been adopted earlier.

The issue was resurrected recently in the U.S. Senate at President Bush's urging even though critics making up a wide-ranging chorus have concluded it would grant the United Nations control of 70 percent of the planet under its oceans, and undermine U.S. sovereignty.

The plan recently was approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on a 17-4 vote, and now must go before the full Senate.

Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., has called it, "U.N. on steroids," and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has concluded it is "the dumbest thing we've ever done. It's like taking our sovereignty and handing it over to some international tribunal. What's wrong with us?"

The affirmation of Bush's position came from White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, who responded to a question from Les Kinsolving, WND's White House correspondent. He asked. "How does the president react to the fact that while he supports the Law of the Sea Treaty, all the leading Republican candidates for president now have announced they oppose it?"

"The president's position is very clear. The Defense Department and the State Department have been to Capitol Hill to help explain why this Law of the Sea Treaty makes sense. The president's position on the Law of the Sea is clear. And presidential candidates are going to make their own decisions," she said.

"Does the president believe that had we been subject to the Law of the Sea Treaty, that President Kennedy could have quarantined Cuba with the U.S. Navy, that President Ford could have used the Navy to rescue the Mayaguez, and President Reagan could have sent a Navy carrier force to defy Qaddafi of Libya in the Gulf..?" Kinsolving asked.

"I always avoid hypotheticals for the future; I'm going to avoid them for past scenarios as well," she said.

I don't avoid hypotheticals. Of course we would not have been able to do any of those things. Before we could defend our interests we would have to crawl to the UN and ask for their permission. And you know how cooperative the UN is with us. Bush and Perino both know this and do not care. Bush is a globalist, plain and simple.

Read it all, but I want to draw your attention to the last section:

The proposal would establish rules governing the uses of the of the world's oceans – treating waters more than 200 nautical miles off coasts as the purview of a new international U.N. bureaucracy, the International Seabed Authority.

The ISA would have the authority to set production controls for ocean mining, drilling and fishing, regulate ocean exploration, issue permits and settle disputes in its own new "court."

Companies seeking to mine or fish would be required to apply for a permit, paying a royalty fee.

With the UN as corrupt and useless as it is, do we really want to turn our mining and fishing industries over to them?

No matter how it is spun, this would be a major loss of our sovereignty.

1 comment: said...

Please help support Fred's Giving Day. It's the Fred Heads turn at creating a money bomb

for Fred

We have a widget you can add to your site as well as a button.

The site is

You can make your pledge there, then on November 21, 2007, make good on your pledge and

donate at

Please help spread the word!